coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicants were born in 1932. The first applicant lives in Slovyansk. The second applicant lived in the same town before his death.
5.  At the material time the applicants worked at the State Soda Plant (ВАТ «Содовий завод»).
6.  On 24 October 1997 and 5 June 1998 the Slovyansk Town Court awarded the first applicant 1,752.56 and 717.74 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears to be paid by the above-mentioned company.
7.  On 24 October 1997 and 28 March 2001 the Slovyansk Town Court awarded the second applicant UAH 940.84 and UAH 715.63[2] in salary arrears to be paid by the above-mentioned company.
8.  These decisions became final and the State Bailiffs' Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.
9.  On 3 January 2001 the Donetsk Regional Arbitration Court (after June 2001 the Donetsk Regional Commercial Court) instituted insolvency proceedings against the debtor company. On 4 September 2003 the court, having declared the debtor insolvent, ordered its liquidation, which is still pending.
10.  The decisions given in the applicants' favour have not been executed.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Kyiv, Ukraine.
5.  From 18 April 1997 until 10 July 2003 the applicant occupied the position of a judge in the Golosiyivskyy District Court.
6.  On 19 July 2002 the Svyatoshynskyy District Court of Kyiv found that the applicant had been entitled to improvement of his housing conditions since 1999. It held that the State Treasury of Ukraine should transfer 177,650 Ukrainian hryvnias[1] (UAH) to the Golosiyivskyy District Court for the purchase of an apartment for the applicant and his family.
7.  On 22 November 2004 the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine informed the applicant that the writ of enforcement had been returned by the State Treasury of Ukraine and that the judgment should be enforced by the State Court Administration.
8.  This judgment at issue remains unenforced allegedly because of lack of funds.
6.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Rankweil.
7.  The applicant is a member of the “Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in Österreich”, which became a registered religious community (eingetragene Bekenntnisgemeinschaft) under the Registered Religious Communities Act 1998 (Bundesgesetz über die Rechtspersönlichkeit von religiösen Bekenntnisgemeinschaften) on 11 July 1998.
8.  From 2000 to 2001 the applicant attended the one-year course of the St Chrischona theological seminary (Bibelschule) in Switzerland. Since then he has been giving religious instruction to the youth and has been working as a municipal preacher (Prediger).
9.  On 27 September 2000 the applicant filed a request with the Federal Minister for Internal Affairs (Bundesminister für Inneres) for recognition as a conscientious objector (Zivildiensterklärung).
10.  On 16 November 2000 the Minister for Internal Affairs recognised the applicant as a conscientious objector. Accordingly, he was exempted from the duty to perform military service but liable to perform civilian service (Zivildienst).
11.  On 20 December 2000 the applicant requested the Minister of Internal Affairs to apply section 13a § 1 of the Civilian Service Act in conformity with the Constitution and to exempt him from the obligation to perform civilian service. He submitted that this provision exempted members of recognised religious societies who performed specific services relating to worship or religious instruction from the obligation to perform civilian service, whereas he, as a student of the theological seminary St. Chrischona, had a comparable clerical position within a registered religious community, namely the “Bund Evangelikaler Gemeinden in Österreich”. Consequently, he should be also exempted from civilian service.
12.  On 18 January 2002 the Minister of Internal Affairs dismissed the applicant's request. The decision referred to the findings of the Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) in a decision of 11 November 1998, in which it had held that exemption from the obligation to perform civilian service under section 13a of the Civilian Service Act merely applied to members of recognised religious societies and could not be extended to members of registered religious communities.
13.  On 13 March 2002 the applicant filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court.
14.  On 7 October 2002 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the complaint for lack of prospects of success.
15.  On the applicant's request the Constitutional Court transmitted his complaint to the Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof).
16.  On 18 February 2003 the applicant supplemented his complaint.
On 18 March 2003 the Administrative Court, referring to the above-mentioned decision of 11 November 1998 by the Constitutional Court, dismissed the complaint. This decision was served on the applicant's counsel on 9 April 2003.
4.  The applicants were born in 1945 and 1937 respectively and live in Slovyansk, Donetsk region, Ukraine.
5.  At the material time the applicants worked at the Soda State Plant (ВАТ «Содовий завод»).
6.  On 31 October 1997 and 14 May 2003 the Slovyansk Town Court awarded Mrs Len 1,709.25 and 5,513.92 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in salary arrears and other payments, to be paid by the above-mentioned company.
7.  On 3 November 1997 and 22 February 2001 the Slovyansk Town Court, and on 22 September 2003 the Labour Disputes Commission, awarded Mr Len the amounts of UAH 2,211.18 (about USD 1,176.47), UAH 9,157.04 (about EUR 1,855.94) and UAH 2,356.92 (about EUR 399.22) in salary arrears, to be paid by the above-mentioned company.
8.  These decisions became final and the State Bailiffs' Service instituted proceedings to enforce them.
9.  On 3 January 2001 the Donetsk Arbitration Court (after June 2001 – the Donetsk Commercial Court) instituted insolvency proceedings against the debtor company. On 4 September 2003 the court, having declared the debtor insolvent, ordered its liquidation, which is still pending.
10.  The decisions given in the applicants' favour have still not been enforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in the village of Uzhachyn, Zhytomyr Region.
5.  The applicant worked at the State-owned Atomspetsbud company (Державна будівельно-промислова компанія «Атомспецбуд»).
6.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against the above company in the Novograd-Volynskyy Town Court (“the Town Court”) claiming 8,677.37 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) in salary arrears.
7.  By an order of the Ministry of Energy dated 27 June 2002, the company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established.
8.  On 15 April 2003 the Town Court terminated the proceedings in the case because the company was in liquidation.
9.  By a letter of 15 December 2003 the liquidation commission acknowledged the applicant's claim of UAH 8,677.37[1]. The applicant was included in the register of creditors of the company.
10.  On 19 December 2008 the applicant was paid the full amount of the outstanding debt.
4.  The applicants were born in 1949 and 1951, respectively, and live in Odessa.
5.  From 1976 until 1996 the second applicant worked for the Chernomorska Penitentiary Institution no. 74 (“the colony”). He was provided with a room in a hall of residence, which was situated on the site of the colony and had the same postal address. He resided there until 1991. Afterwards, the applicants lived together in the first applicant's flat. The second applicant is still entitled to reside in the colony and it remains his registered place of residence.
6.  In September 1998 the applicants instituted civil proceedings in the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa against the colony and the local post office. They alleged that letters addressed to them by domestic and international courts, which had been delivered to the address of the second applicant, had been unlawfully opened and read by the defendant institutions. The applicants sought compensation for non-pecuniary damage.
7.  On 29 March 2001 the court rejected the applicants' claims. It established that the colony had opened two letters addressed to the applicants: the letter of 27 October 1998, sent by the Starokyivskyy District Court of Kyiv to the first applicant, and the letter of 24 August 1998, sent by the European Court of Human Rights to the second applicant in the context of his previous application to the Court (no. 44997/98, declared inadmissible on 26 October 1999).
8.  The court held that, pursuant to Article 28 of the Correctional Labour Code of 1970 and section 7 of the Pre-Trial Detention Act of 1993, the administration of the colony had been authorised to monitor all correspondence delivered to it. Since the room of the second applicant was situated on the premises of the colony, his correspondence had been dealt with by its administration in accordance with the rules applicable to detainees' correspondence. The court also found that the administration had acted in accordance with the Instruction on the processing of documents in the organs of the Ministry of the Interior and the Instruction on the organization of the monitoring of correspondence of persons held in penitentiary institutions and pre-trial detention centres, issued by the Ministry of the Interior on 22 June 1993 and 28 May 1999, respectively. The court further stated that the letter addressed to the first applicant had been opened also due to the fact that there had been a detainee with the same name in the colony. The court concluded that the interception of the applicants' correspondence had not violated their constitutional rights.
9.  On 19 July 2001 the Odessa Regional Court upheld the first-instance court's decision. On 15 May 2002 a panel of three judges of the Supreme Court rejected the applicants' request for leave to appeal in cassation.
4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Trnava.
5.  On 17 April 2000 the applicant lodged a civil action before the Trnava District Court.
6.  Following the applicant's failure to eliminate shortcomings in his action, the District Court discontinued the proceedings on 16 January 2001.
7.  On 28 August 2001 the Trnava Regional Court quashed the above decision as the District Court had failed to instruct the applicant in a clear manner as to how to eliminate the shortcomings in his action. On 27 November 2001 the case was remitted to the District Court.
8.  On 29 November 2002, 20 January 2003 and 1 July 2004 the applicant addressed a request for acceleration of the proceedings and two complaints about undue delays to the President of the District Court.
9.  On 24 August 2005 the District Court rejected the applicant's action due to his failure to eliminate shortcomings in his action although he had been instructed how to do so.
10.  On 14 July 2006 the Regional Court confirmed the first-instance decision. The decision became final on 22 August 2006.
11.  On 16 March 2005 the Constitutional Court rejected as being manifestly ill-founded the applicant's complaint about a violation by the District Court of his right to a hearing without unjustified delay.
12.  The Constitutional Court observed that a single period of inactivity (12 months) of the District Court had not led to a breach of the applicant's right to a hearing within a reasonable time. Furthermore, it held that the remedy used by the applicant, namely the complaint about undue delays to the President of the District Court, had had an accelerating effect.
4.  The applicant, an anaesthesiologist, was born in 1968 and lives in Samsun.
5.  The applicant was working at the Kars State Hospital when criminal proceedings were instigated against him for alleged involvement in the activities of an illegal organisation. He was accused together with other suspects of, inter alia, hanging posters and banners in various places in Ankara on behalf of that organisation. Throughout the proceedings the applicant maintained his innocence. In the meantime, Kars State Hospital suspended the applicant pending the criminal proceedings.
6.  On 11 September 2001 the Ankara State Security Court, on the basis of the evidence contained in the case file, convicted the applicant under Article 7 § 1 of Law no. 3713 and sentenced him to two years and six months' imprisonment and to a fine. The applicant appealed.
7.  On an unspecified date a written opinion of the principal public prosecutor at the Court of Cassation dated 10 December 2001 was submitted to that court. This opinion was not communicated to the applicant.
8.  On 27 March 2002 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the applicant.
9.  The applicant's request for a rectification of the Court of Cassation's judgment was dismissed by the principal public prosecutor at that court.
10.  The applicant submitted that he had been released from prison in July 2003.
11.  By an additional judgment dated 4 May 2004, the Ankara State Security Court, taking into account the amendment to the definition of “terror acts” under section 7 of Law no. 3713 pursuant to Law no. 4928, acquitted the applicant, who had not taken part in any violent activities, and nullified his conviction, together with all its consequences. This judgment became final on 11 May 2004.
12.  In the meantime, on 28 February 2002, the Supreme Disciplinary Commission of the Ministry of Health decided to dismiss the applicant from the civil service. The applicant's objection to this decision was dismissed by the administrative court who noted, inter alia, that, according to the disciplinary investigation, the applicant had taken fifteen days leave from 2 June 2000 in pursuit of his illegal activities. The court also noted that the applicant's conviction had become final. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court on 27 December 2005. In his observations the applicant submitted that, despite his acquittal, his request for a retrial had been rejected by the administrative court. However, he did not submit any court decisions.
13.  According to an attestation dated 10 September 2007 the applicant is currently employed at Atasam hospital in Samsun.
5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and is now serving his sentence in prison UP-288/T of Minusinsk, the Krasnoyarsk Region.
6.  On 14 August 1989 seven teenagers were found dead near Kazynet railway station of the Askizskiy District of the Republic of Khakassia. On an unspecified date in 1989 the competent authorities opened an investigation into the case. On 24 July 1992 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed murder. By a judgment of 24 March 1995, the Kemerovo Regional Court convicted him as charged and sentenced him to capital punishment. By a judgment of 11 October 1995, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal. On 4 September 1996 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review proceedings, quashed the judgments of 24 March 1995 and 11 October 1995 and remitted the case for an additional investigation.
7. On 17 February 1997 the case file was transferred to the General Prosecutor's Office and the criminal proceedings were reopened. On 3 April 1997 the applicant was released from custody on an undertaking not to leave his town of residence. On 18 August 2000 he was officially charged.
8. On an unspecified date the pre-trial investigation was completed and on 30 November 2000 the case file was submitted to the trial court for judicial examination.
9. On 18 September 2001 the Supreme Court of the Republic Khakasia convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to 15 years' imprisonment. The applicant was detained in the court room immediately after the pronouncement of his sentence. By a judgment of 12 February 2003, the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the conviction on appeal.
4. The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Skopje.
5. On 5 May 1991 the then Municipal Court of Struga (“the first-instance court”) ruled partly in the applicant's favour ordering the defendant, Mr J.T., to pay him compensation. On 29 December 1992 the then District Court of Bitola overturned the decision and increased the amount of the award.
6. On 1 February 1993 the applicant sought enforcement before the first-instance court by an inventory and public sale of the defendant's (“the debtor”) movable property.
7. According to the applicant, his request for enforcement was granted on 3 February 1993, but no formal decision has been ever served on him.
8. Between 17 April 1993 and 18 April 1994 respectively, the applicant complained to the President of the first-instance court and to the State Judicial Council about the court's inactivity. No answer was provided.
9. On 23 June 1994 an expert determined the amount of the applicant's claim with interest.
10. According to the Government, in May 1999 the enforcement proceedings were terminated as being resolved “in other way” (“на друг начин”) corresponding to the common practice of the courts and extract of the court's registry. No record was made about the termination of the proceedings. In or about March 2000, the case-file was destroyed.
11. According to the applicant, on 13 December 2006 the first-instance court intended to restore the case by requesting him to resubmit relevant documents. The Government did not dispute that assertion.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Kropotkin, a town in the Krasnodar Region of Russia.
5.  The applicant is a retired serviceman. In 1992 when the applicant was still serving, his military unit signed a contract with a building enterprise of the Kropotkin Town Authority for the construction of an apartment house for servicemen, the applicant included. In 1993 the military unit was disbanded, and the applicant retired.
6.  Not having received the flat, the applicant sued the enterprise. On 24 November 1997 the Kropotkin Town Court ordered the Town Authority to provide the applicant with a three-room flat in the 199-apartment house no. 19, 20, 21 that was being constructed in Microdistrict no. 1 of Kropotkin. This judgment became binding on an unspecified date in 1997.
7.  In 1997 the authority informed bailiffs that the construction had been delayed by a difficult socio-economic situation in the country. In 1999 the authority informed the bailiffs that the construction would be finished during the first three months of 2000.
8.  Frustrated with the delay, the applicant asked the court to change the mode of enforcement to a lump-sum payment of 250,000 Russian roubles. The court refused that change because the applicant had failed to prove the impossibility of a literal enforcement. The court noted that the judgment had not specified a time frame for the provision of the flat, and that the construction was in progress. The court also noted that a lump-sum payment would have prejudiced other public expenditure.
4.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Rostov-on-Don.
5.  On an unspecified date he sued his former wife for title to a half of the flat which they had allegedly purchased while they were married. The matter was repeatedly reviewed by courts at two levels of jurisdiction.
6.  On 20 February 2001 the Leninskiy District Court of Rostov-on-Don dismissed the applicant's claim.
7.  On 11 May 2001 the Rostov Regional Court quashed the judgment of 20 February 2001 on appeal and remitted the matter for further consideration.
8.  On 8 August 2001 the District Court granted the applicant's claim in full.
9.  On 19 September 2001 the Rostov Regional Court upheld the judgment of 8 August 2001 on appeal.
10.  On 2 October 2002 the applicant's former wife asked the President of the Rostov Regional Court to lodge an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 8 August 2001 as upheld on 19 September 2001.
11.  On 24 December 2002 the acting President of the Rostov Regional Court granted the request and sent the case to the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court for supervisory review.
12.  On 26 December 2002 the Presidium of the Rostov Regional Court reassessed the evidence and quashed the judgments of 11 May, 8 August and 19 September 2001 by way of supervisory review and reinstated the judgment of 20 February 2001. It considered that the applicant had failed to provide enough evidence to substantiate his title to the disputed property.
5.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Moscow. He has no fixed place of residence or residence registration.
6.  On 24 May 2002 the applicant asked to hire cutlery and a folding bed from the “Morion” hire agency. Having studied his passport, the manager replied that the company could not hire out anything to him because he had no residence registration[1].
7.  On 12 August 2002 the applicant lodged a civil action against the “Morion” company, alleging unlawful denial of services. The statement of claim indicated that the applicant had no fixed place of residence and provided an address in Moscow for correspondence.
8.  On 9 October 2002 the Khoroshevskiy District Court stayed the applicant's claim because his place of residence had not been specified. He was invited to specify it by 11 November 2002, failing which his action would be declared inadmissible.
9.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 9 October 2002, alleging an unlawful restriction on his right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 46 of the Russian Constitution on account of his inability to show that he had permanent residence at a specific place.
10.  On 20 December 2002 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision.
11.  On 5 April 2003 the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to subscribe to the services of the MTS telecommunications company. He was refused because he had no residence registration.
12.  On 22 August 2003 he sued the MTS company and the cell phone vendor for subscription to a contract and compensation for non-pecuniary damage. He indicated the city of Moscow as his place of residence and provided a poste restante address for correspondence.
13.  On 8 September 2002 the Taganskiy District Court of Moscow stayed the applicant's claim due to his omission to indicate his address. He was instructed to rectify the omission within ten days, failing which his claim would be declared inadmissible.
14.  The applicant received a copy of the decision by mail at the address indicated in his statement of claim.
15.  The applicant appealed, submitting that he had indicated his address in the statement of claim.
16.  On 18 November 2003 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision of 8 September 2003.